Yibing Zhao1, Lu He2, Huanxin Meng1. 1. Department of Periodontitis, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China. 2. Department of Periodontitis, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China; Email: helubj@tom.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effect of the 65 µm glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) and ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase. METHODS:Twenty-three patients at the age of 28-72 (8 males and 15 females) who were systematically healthy were involved in this study. According to splitting-mouth design, one side of a mouth was randomly assigned to the experiment group with 65 µm GPAP therapy, while the other side was the control group with ultrasonic scaling therapy. The clinical parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PLI), staining index (SI) were recorded. The patients' perception of treatment was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). The treatment time was recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Both of the two methods had good clinical effects. PD, BI and PLI of the two groups 12 weeks after treatment were better than those at baseline (P < 0.01). There was no significant deference between the two methods at baseline and at the 12 weeks after treatment. The VAS value of experiment group was better than that of control group (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 3.3 ± 1.8, P < 0.01). The treatment time of experiment group was also shorter than that of control group [(192.7 ± 82.7) s vs. (345.4 ± 116.9) s, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that 65 µm GPAP may be as effective as the ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase. 65 µm GPAP had the advantage of more comfort and less time consuming.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effect of the 65 µm glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) and ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase. METHODS: Twenty-three patients at the age of 28-72 (8 males and 15 females) who were systematically healthy were involved in this study. According to splitting-mouth design, one side of a mouth was randomly assigned to the experiment group with 65 µm GPAP therapy, while the other side was the control group with ultrasonic scaling therapy. The clinical parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PLI), staining index (SI) were recorded. The patients' perception of treatment was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). The treatment time was recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Both of the two methods had good clinical effects. PD, BI and PLI of the two groups 12 weeks after treatment were better than those at baseline (P < 0.01). There was no significant deference between the two methods at baseline and at the 12 weeks after treatment. The VAS value of experiment group was better than that of control group (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 3.3 ± 1.8, P < 0.01). The treatment time of experiment group was also shorter than that of control group [(192.7 ± 82.7) s vs. (345.4 ± 116.9) s, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that 65 µm GPAP may be as effective as the ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase. 65 µm GPAP had the advantage of more comfort and less time consuming.